“WORKERS NOT SATISFIED”

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22478, 12 August 1938, Page 10

“WORKERS NOT SATISFIED”

ROTATIONAL, JOB CONDITIONS PREVIOUS STATEMENTS REPUDIATED Delegates of rotational workers employed on jobs controlled by the Public Works Department in the Canterbury area passed a resolution at a meeting last evening repudiating statements made recently that New Brighton and Christchurch men were satisfied with their conditions of work. The meeting also issued a statement for publication in which the reasons for this dissatisfaction were given. Called to discuss conditions on various jobs and the reports which have appeared in the newspapers recently about the men’s attitude to the conditions, the meeting was attended by 11 delegates. All jobs were represented. Mr J. Wood was elected to the chair and Mr F. L. Kilroy was appointed secretary. Mr H. E. Barnsley, Canterbury area organiser for the National Unemployed Workers’ Movement, , was present. The resolution was as follows: “That this meeting, comprising delegates from public works jobs in the Canterbury area, repudiates the recent statements by Mr H. R. Macdonald, president of the New Brighton branch of the National Unemployed Workers’ Movement, as published in the newspapers, to the effect that New Brighton and Christchurch men were satisfied, on the grounds that a false impression was created; arid endorses Delegate D. Reed’s action in carrying out the instructions of the men he represents; and further, also endorses the action of the New Brighton branch of the National Unemployed Workers' Movement in passing a motion of'noconfidence in Mr Macdonald at its meeting held in New Brighton last Tuesday night.” It was stated that Mr Macdonald had told the Minister for Labour (the Jlon. H. T. Armstrong) that, contrary to reports. the men were satisfied with the treatement accorded them by the Government. The following statement was made about the causes for dissatisfaction:— “When representations were made ' the Minister for Labour some weeks ago, the whole matter was discussed in Wellington by him. One or two altera- 1 tions to the conditions of the public works agreement were made, not the least important of these from the men’s point of view being the wet weather clause which provided for payment being made when the men lost time through wet weather, provided they reported on the job. After having been notified of this alteration, the men expected to be paid for such time lost as from July 11. as stated. The officer in charge of the job was appointed the sole judge of a ‘wet’ day and could notify the men to work on Saturday motnings if necessary to make up as much of the lost time as possible. After these promises, the men were very surprised when they found that they had not been paid- in full for two wet days lost. On each of these two days, the men should have been paid 16s, as they were not asked to make the time up. Instead of this, 14s lid was deducted from the pay. ' Consequently the men cannot understand how the department arrives at this figure for the two days and are at a loss to understand the interpretation being placed by the department on the wet weather clause. “As far as the new system of wages is concerend, instead of being paid on the basis of £l6 for a four-weekly period, it appears that none of the men has received the £l6 for the fourweekly period, and in some cases a week’s wages is still being withheld ”

The statement adds that the men have no serious objection to the alterations themselves, but contend that they are not being fully applied. Even under the altered conditions, the men consider they are not being treated nearly as well as the big majority of rotational workers employed on jobs outside jurisdiction of the Public Works Department.